OMIGOSH! Articles! On Global Warming that DONT SUPPORT THE THEORY?!?!?!?!?!? Options

[impala454]

...same thing with being so staunchly against it as well with the fingers in their ears going <la la la, I don't care about whatever article you show me I don't believe it>

I don't do that. Like has been said many times on here, I don't doubt it when someone says our temperatures overall may be rising. What I doubt is that we're the cause. I've seen nothing as of yet that's led me to believe otherwise, and feel that spending mass amounts of time & money to try to correct a problem we don't yet fully understand is a huge waste of resources.

I will laugh for a very long time if in 50 years we have a mini ice age or something.

edit: you hate emoticons?

[Dogmeat]

moderates are idiots. so are greenies. if you aren't so republican you're gay then we need to millitantly eradicate you from existance!

[Testm0nkey]

i just dont understand how you dont believe all the reports about pollution and human activity causing climate change?! HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT? that is utterly shocking to me that i cant even explain it without going uhhh uhhh duh!

its basically a fact thats in textbooks around the world and virtually every scientific institution/organization worth a damn agrees upon.

this is in response to impala saying he doesnt believe the mountains and mountains of evidence around the world about the issue and some of it thats been posted on here in arguments in the past


edit: hell even BUSH finally admitted he believed in it!

[Hartmann]

i just dont understand how you dont believe all the reports about pollution and human activity causing climate change?! HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT? that is utterly shocking to me that i cant even explain it without going uhhh uhhh duh!

The same way you don't believe reports that state the opposite.

[Testm0nkey]

because there are so few that are legitimate as well as being illogical

[Dogmeat]

Vote for Al Gore and the Democrats and support the liberal agendo or the world will end because of catastrophic gobal warming.

How logical is this really, Cathryn?

[Hartmann]

because there are so few that are legitimate as well as being illogical

Logic is a matter of perception in this case. Just because it is illogical does not mean it is illogical to others.

I have only seen a few "legitimate" articles that argue for global warming, so I am not sure there is a mound of evidence in your favor. There have been more than a couple of articles posted here that seriously refute the claims that warming is not cyclical and caused by humans.

I don't think anyone believes we don't have an impact, however, I'm not going to jump in on the notion that we have some stellar impact that changes ice ages. Why? Because we've had serious warming before, we've been producing serious amounts of pollutants for hundreds of years and we're just now noticing, and there is some evidence that we may be cooling slightly. Of course none of those things are logical

The people of the world are more concerned about "global warming" when they should be worried about the giant island of garbage. At least everyone can agree it's a pile and it's made of garbage.

[Testm0nkey]

The articles against global warming on here are not from reputable sources. Who cares what a professor of economics who works for the Bush administration thinks the cause of global warming is? Would he know better than the NOAA, IPCC, basically the entire Atmospheric/Climatologist community? Its logical that its taken time to show some effects. Do i need to explain how its built up again? Totally logical and has been scientifically proven again and again

there will be a time people will just have to admit to themselves its true

[chook]

Eric, I'd like your opinion because everyone is being pretentious.

And were you in ruidoso a couple of weeks ago?

[Hartmann]

The articles against global warming on here are not from reputable sources. Who cares what a professor of economics who works for the Bush administration thinks the cause of global warming is? Would he know better than the NOAA, IPCC, basically the entire Atmospheric/Climatologist community? Its logical that its taken time to show some effects. Do i need to explain how its built up again? Totally logical and has been scientifically proven again and again

there will be a time people will just have to admit to themselves its true

There have been at least two articles that cited climatology summits and meteorological departments at some major universities about their thoughts on global warming. The entire community? I have posted articles that quoted climatologists disagreeing with global warming and been given such pat responses as "they're paid off by big oil". So even though there are published scientists who disagree with the theories out there, their point of view is written off. Now there's logic.

[Dogmeat]

If you disagree with Jesus (Al Gore) the world will end! The liberals and Cathryn say so! REPENT!

[blaarg]

I have only seen a few "legitimate" articles that argue for global warming, so I am not sure there is a mound of evidence in your favor.

uh...yeah...I'm going to emphatically disagree with this statement.
You must not have been looking very hard...

edit: you hate emoticons?

just trying to start shit again Impala

<wait for it>

[TetraGrammaton C...]

[Hartmann]

uh...yeah...I'm going to emphatically disagree with this statement.
You must not have been looking very hard...

I said legitimate, and yes, I've looked for articles. There is one by the NOAA (and I've seen rebuttals) and a couple out there by a few scientist (then again, I've seen ones against the claim by scientists). The one scientist who is pointing out that warming is cyclical, no one wants to listen to because he isn't "published" But they will listen to the UN, because we all know how spot on they've been in the past.

My point is, there are high fluting people on both sides of the argument. Who's right? Who knows. Arguing logic isn't going to go anywhere, except circles.

[pebkac]

I could honestly give two shits what it sounds like or any of you guys' analysis of every damn thing I post as having some malicious intent. It just so happens that I disagree with most of the people on here about almost everything. Keeps it interesting IMHO. I typically put about as much sarcasm & caustic verbage in my posts as other's responses to me. But I suppose the the way it works is that the person with the least popular opinion is in fact the least popular person, right? Or is that most popular to hate?

My problem isn't your argumentative nature. I rather like that. My problem is with your constant straw manning and taking people's arguments out of context.

I mean, here you totally take me and hartmann's arguments out of context and accuse us making microsoft conspiracy theories. Here, I'm not sure if you genuinely misunderstand Cathryn's arguments or if you really were trying to straw man her, but you totally misrepresent her point of view and when she points that out to you, you still insist that your version of her argument is the correct one. And then in this thread, she makes a topical argument backed by sources and you accuse her of trying to control everyone's life.

I mean shit, I understand that it's the internet and misunderstandings happen (and I'm as guilty of them as anyone else is), but lately you've been taking it to a totally different level. I always enjoy a good debate, as long as the person I'm debating responds to what people are actually saying.